Apple CEO Tim Cook on Hate Speech: 'You Have No Place on Our Platform'

[Solver]

One person’s comedy is another person’s hate speech.

 

[Carnegie]

Tim Cook is fundamentally correct and I’m sure his heart is in the right place. Hate speech shouldn’t be tolerated.

But seeing the people in this thread getting worked up was very entertaining for me, because it looks like some are only disagreeing because they hate the liberal ideology behind it rather than the elephant in the room. As libertarians and freedom-lovers, you should be more worried about it.

Corporations should not have control over this sort of thing, which is likely the exact opposite reasoning as a lot of you—in a capitalist society where money rules all, corporations have the potential to be as dangerous as a corrupt government. It should ultimately be up to us as the people to decide what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and whether or not to silence it, be it through democratic means or otherwise.

A lot more of you should realise that us on the extreme left agree with you, even if for different reasons entirely, and we mutually see neoliberalism as ludicrous and threatening. Once you get far enough left—far past what Americans consider to be ‘left’—you’ll find that most of us would reluctantly agree.

It should be up to private actors to decided for themselves what they consider hate speech and, for the most part, to act accordingly. If a private actor doesn't want to associate with another private actor based on the latter's speech, that should be the former's prerogative.

If the people that make decisions for corporations don't want to allow certain speech on their platform, they should be able to prohibit it. And, of course, if the shareholders of that corporation don't like the decisions those people make, they should be able to either sell their shares or, collectively if enough of them feel that way, effectively remove those people from decision making positions. Other employees of that corporation should likewise be able to stop working for it. Customers of that corporation should likewise be able to stop being customers. Other speakers should be free not to use that corporation's platform to speak. All involved should be free to make such decisions for themselves.
[doublepost=1543954003][/doublepost]

Sorry Timmy Kook-boy but we have this thing called the 1st amendment. So go scratch.
We don't need a corporation telling us what is right-think or wrong think.
I think you have 1984 in your book store. Unless you "curated" that out already.

The First Amendment isn't really implicated in this context. It doesn't, and certainly wasn't supposed to, limit private actors. It was meant to protect people from the new federal government. It was meant to safeguard liberty (as such might otherwise be limited by the government), not act as a limit on liberty (by, e.g., preventing private actors from doing things they might otherwise be allowed to do, such as prohibiting from their platforms speech which they don't want there).

 

[Ploki]

Honest question if you are American. Would you prefer if European settlers had never come this this land? Where would you be right now if not in the wealthiest and most prosperous country, compared to the rest of the world?

im not american, im central/eastern european.
and as far as USA goes, i prefer northern europe to USA, the cost of imflated prosperity is also extreme poverty and crap healthcare, and i prefer the way europe does it

 

[Carnegie]

The whole bakery/gay wedding cake thing drives me crazy because so many people equate refusing to decorate a cake in a specific manner with refusing service. Refusing to make a cake with a message that one finds offensive is not the same thing at all as refusing service to someone at a restaurant or retail store or even selling a pre-decorated cake. The defining factor is "work for hire."

• Should a painter who typically paints family portraits be forced to paint a nude couple if he finds painting nudes uncomfortable?
• Should an author who co-authors books be forced to co-author a book on a subject matter she finds offensive (or just uninteresting)?

Any business that's open to the public should serve all members of the public. This means restaurants serve anyone, bakeries sell cakes to anyone who comes into the store, clothing stores sell to anyone selecting an item from the rack. And, in the case of a bakery, if the bakery has an advertised list of pre-defined things they'll put on a cake, they should put any of those things on a cake for anyone who requests it.

Creative and custom work for hire; however, should always be at the discretion of the person performing the work for hire. The scope of the work is immaterial, be it a novel, a painting, or words on a cake.

Refusing to perform creative work that's personally offensive is not at all the same as refusing to transact a retail sale or refusing restaurant service. Equating them misses the point entirely.

Sure.

The most reported on cases involving bakers being required to make cakes for same-sex weddings (i.e. the Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweet Cakes by Melissa cases) didn't involve bakers refusing to make cakes based on the designs of those cakes or based on what the would-be customers wanted written on them. They didn't refuse to make cakes that would be decorated in specific manners or that would contain particular messages. They refused to make cakes based solely on whose weddings those cakes would be for. They refused to make cakes for the same-sex couples regardless of design. They wouldn't have been willing to make cakes for those couples even if the couples wanted cakes which were identical to other cakes which they had made.

If their refusal to make cakes had been based on aspects of the cakes' designs - e.g., what the couples wanted written on the cakes - the legal considerations would have been different. The First Amendment argument, at least in the Masterpiece case, may well have been successful at the state level.

 

[Ploki]

Also "nationalism and nazi"are not the same

yeah i agree!
i meant nazis not nationalists.

in a post further up i explicitly stated nazism is not nationalism (but the line between is very fine)
[doublepost=1543954591][/doublepost]also, props to everyone for keeping it pretty civil.

 

[Carnegie]

The Hays Code was also the right of every Hollywood studio to individually enforce if they chose (and they did). And since there was no other reasonable way for motion pictures to be distributed at the time it had the same de facto impact that it would have had it been a regime imposed by the government.

The first amendment has no meaning if it is only narrowly construed as to apply only to the government and can be thus easily mooted by corporate groups who collectively control a market and conspire to deny access to it, as the Hays Code originally did.

The First Amendment has no meaning if it only applies to the government? Then it has no meaning I suppose. It was never intended to apply to private actors. The Bill of Rights was, for the most part, about limiting the power of government (to be specific, the power of the new federal government). It wasn't about limiting the freedom of private actors; it was about protecting that freedom. Those who insisted on the Bill of Rights were concerned with the federal government exercising too much power, they weren't concerned with private actors exercising too much power.

 

[Solver]

yeah i agree!
i meant nazis not nationalists.

in a post further up i explicitly stated nazism is not nationalism (but the line between is very fine)
[doublepost=1543954591][/doublepost]also, props to everyone for keeping it pretty civil.

Nazis started as national socialists, marched across nations hoping to be globalists.

 

[lunarworks]

You got to love the ones who attempt to mock you whilst not providing any actual counterarguments

"Rational" has become as much of a pseudo-intellectual fluff word as "objective". It's a way of saying "My big brain has fully considered this in a logical and completely free-of-bias manner, therefore my opinion is the correct one. Your opinion is tainted by bias and frivilous emotion, therefore it is incorrect." It ignores the fact that personal bias touches everything whether you realize it or not, and that not everyone experiences the world in the same way that you do.

It's like how people who take umbrage at being called a racist are typically also the ones who dismiss others' feelings.

 

[Carnegie]

“Actual facts”? The guy said himself during a speech pre elections, that “jobs are not coming back! What is he going to do? Use a magic wand?”
Straight out of his mouth!



You sir, are truly misanthropic and devoid of emotions if you’re talking seriously. But let me guess, you are a justice warrior when it comes to immigrant families “getting separated on the borders because you feel sorry about little children crying.

I had never listened to the comments from President Obama which you refer to. So I just found them and watched the video of them. I wasn't a supporter of President Obama; we disagreed on a great many things. But he was generally right in what he was saying there and nothing that has happened since has changed that.

His comments were dead-on. He didn't indicate that no jobs would come back here. To the contrary, he talked about how some were, for various reasons, coming back. He even talked about how the number of manufacturing jobs had been increasing. But he did say that some jobs weren't coming back, e.g. because of automation eliminating the need for them. He was right about that. And he talked about the need for people to train for the jobs that would be available going forward, not for the jobs that used to be available in the past.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

I don’t understand how Alex Jones got banned from the internet on the basis of “hate speech”.
You can call the man, delusional, a bad entertainer or conspiracy theorist but a racist that spews hate speech?

There is not a single time where he openly called for hate against a race group of people. His infowars team consists of lots of different backgrounds not just “whites” and he has interviewed people from all ethnicities that he agrees with ideologically and lastly his fan base consists of all races and religions. So how Tim Cook can claim that Alex Jones is a racist is beyond any imagination.

 

[Mansu944]

hmmmmmm, ok Timmy...care to explain this?

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/f-k-white-people-single/1437821252

 

[AlexGraphicD]

I had never listened to the comments from President Obama which you refer to. So I just found them and watched the video of them. I wasn't a supporter of President Obama; we disagreed on a great many things. But he was generally right in what he was saying there and nothing that has happened since has changed that.

His comments were dead-on. He didn't indicate that no jobs would come back here. To the contrary, he talked about how some were, for various reasons, coming back. He even talked about how the number of manufacturing jobs had been increasing. But he did say that some jobs weren't coming back, e.g. because of automation eliminating the need for them. He was right about that. And he talked about the need for people to train for the jobs that would be available going forward, not for the jobs that used to be available in the past.

Again, even if we assume that the good economy is a result of the Obama admin, the Trump haters were screaming that the economy will crash if Trump gets elected, that we will go to WW3, etc. None of this happened and the economy is in good course.
If he was such a horrible President he would destroy the economy already in the three year period.
Also, Did Obama make an agreement with apple to bring back to the US $300 billion from overseas?
Come on, this is a weak argument.

 

[Greymacuser]

Really? Private entities banning white supremacy on their property used to be “the subject matter of dystopian sci-go movies”? I think you might be confused.

Eh, just telling the truth.

'Truth' must be a shorter way to say 'bigoted ham-fisted grunt' now-a-days.
[doublepost=1543956331][/doublepost]

So I gather you'd be ok with them barring other things to. Like women or minorities like other private companies have done in the past.

 

[Carnegie]

Again, even if we assume that the good economy is a result of the Obama admin, the Trump haters were screaming that the economy will crash if Trump gets elected, that we will go to WW3, etc. None of this happened and the economy is in good course.
If he was such a horrible President he would destroy the economy already in the three year period.
Also, Did Obama make an agreement with apple to bring back to the US $300 billion from overseas?
Come on, this is a weak argument.

What is a weak argument? None of what you just said reflects on my comments. I commented on the comments from President Obama which you referred to. Are you referring to someone else's (supposedly weak) argument?

Also, to be clear, President Trump didn't make an agreement with Apple to bring back $300 billion from overseas.

I'm glad that Congress passed the tax reform that it did. In my view, it didn't go nearly far enough in reducing taxes and in particular taxes on (legitimate) foreign earnings. And Congress should have had the political courage to reduce spending at the same time. But it at least made our corporate taxation policies a little better. So I'm not complaining about that.

 

[9081094]

While I’m totally against hate speech or discrimination in any form, I find it very hard to listen to hollow phrases like ‘we design our products for everyone’ and upping the prices to an extraordinarily level that not everyone is able to buy them.

Same with the environmental issues. Nice to see they’re using environmental friendly materials BUT on the other hand glue them together, make them not user upgradable or durable.

What’s very hard for me is when people use those statements for marketing use. I personally find that hypocrisy at its best.
[doublepost=1543958172][/doublepost]

hmmmmmm, ok Timmy...care to explain this?

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/f-k-white-people-single/1437821252

It’s probably a bestseller so Timmy makes an exception

 

[nsayer]

The First Amendment has no meaning if it only applies to the government? Then it has no meaning I suppose. It was never intended to apply to private actors. The Bill of Rights was, for the most part, about limiting the power of government (to be specific, the power of the new federal government). It wasn't about limiting the freedom of private actors; it was about protecting that freedom. Those who insisted on the Bill of Rights were concerned with the federal government exercising too much power, they weren't concerned with private actors exercising too much power.

I refuse to believe that the founders would have countenanced working around the bill of rights by merely delegating actions that violate it outside of the federal government.

Here's a telling question: Would you object to a federal law that extended the first amendment prohibition on free speech restriction to non-government actors and individuals?

 

[sirozha]

Nazis started as national socialists, marched across nations hoping to be globalists.

They also ended as National Socialists.

 

[Carnegie]

I refuse to believe that the founders would have countenanced working around the bill of rights by merely delegating actions that violate it outside of the federal government.

A private actor acting with power delegated to it by a government (or, e.g., with funding and direction provided by a government) is generally considered a government actor for First Amendment free speech purposes. When we say private actor in this context, we mean a purely private actor - not one acting on behalf of government.

But that's not what we're dealing with here. In this context Apple is a private actor. It isn't acting with power delegated to it by the government. So the First Amendment doesn't apply. And that is certainly as the Founders intended it. The protections in the Bill of Rights, when it was passed, were only meant to apply to the federal government. That's never really been in dispute, at least not since the early 1800s.

 

[nsayer]

A private actor acting with power delegated to it by a government (or, e.g., with funding and direction provided by a government) is generally considered a government actor for First Amendment free speech purposes. When we say private actor in this context, we mean a purely private actor - not one acting on behalf of government.

But that's not what we're dealing with here. In this context Apple is a private actor. It isn't acting with power delegated to it by the government. So the First Amendment doesn't apply. And that is certainly as the Founders intended it. The protections in the Bill of Rights, when it was passed, were only meant to apply to the federal government. That's never really been in dispute, at least not since the early 1800s.

I added this as an edit earlier, but you replied too quick for me, so I'll ask it here:

Would you object to a federal law extending the restrictions of the first amendment to non-government actors and individuals?

And in a de facto sense, when monopolies or cabals control the entire platform upon which a first amendment right may be exercised at all (as with my example of the Hays Code), then that is essentially a workaround for the intent of the first amendment, which is that the rights to that expression should not be abridged.

 

[unobtainium]

False news? Ok maybe I’ll google a bit and show you otherwise.

Lmao please do. You’re just repeating false talking points.

Ok Mr. Compassion, let’s endorse your open border policies aka “asylum” and let’s welcome millions of people who will use the asylum as an excuse to stay to this country. That will work just great.

Guess what? Ignorant nativists have always hated immigration — they hated the Irish when they came, they hated Poles and Jews, etc. They said all the same things about those groups that idiots are now saying about Latin Americans. The tribalism never changes, just the groups that are being vilified.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric was dumb and wrong in 1863, it’s dumb and wrong now. History will look back on Trump as a misguided bigot.
[doublepost=1543960006][/doublepost]

Going with your analogy, if you want to criminalize all abortions with the exception of victims of rape, then that would be progress.

No, because it wasn’t an analogy, it’s a principle. You’re free to decide at any time who gets to remain inside or attached to your body. Deciding to have sex with someone doesn’t mean you can’t change your mind partway through. Having sex doesn’t mean you can’t regret getting pregnant or suffer an accidental pregnancy.

But if you think that's a pro-abortion argument even after the baby would be viable outside the womb, then you're not very bright.

Babies viable outside the womb? What percentage of abortions do you think take place after 24 weeks? Some googling tells me it’s 1.3%. I’d be fine with banning feticide at that point.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

I don’t care what the US constitution allows. Hate speech existed before the US constitution was written, and it has existed all over the world. How does the US constitution have any bearing on hate speech?

Interesting point, and one that I will only 'slightly' disagree with. "HATEFUL" speech has always existed. "HATE" speech is a generic catch-all term currently being used to mean "things we don't like". That's the issue that people have. And yes... the US Constitution specifically doesn't limit any type of speech - including HATEFUL speech - simply because the definition changes with time. "Shall not infringe" doesn't.
[doublepost=1543960794][/doublepost]

I don't need to define it. The suggestion it doesn't exist is moronic.

Either participate in a respectful discussion - which by definition includes all parties sharing information - or take your ball and go home. You're no better than any of us and I welcome everyones opinion.

 

[Ploki]

hmmmmmm, ok Timmy...care to explain this?

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/f-k-white-people-single/1437821252

Poor white people with their history of opression and injustice.

Lets not pretend things are equal because they are clearly not - when they are and there’s a safe distance from racist history i’ll full support your POV, right now you’re just rustling jimmies.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Tim Cook is fundamentally correct and I’m sure his heart is in the right place. Hate speech shouldn’t be tolerated.

But seeing the people in this thread getting worked up was very entertaining for me, because it looks like some are only disagreeing because they hate the liberal ideology behind it rather than the elephant in the room. As libertarians and freedom-lovers, you should be more worried about it.

Corporations should not have control over this sort of thing, which is likely the exact opposite reasoning as a lot of you—in a capitalist society where money rules all, corporations have the potential to be as dangerous as a corrupt government. It should ultimately be up to us as the people to decide what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and whether or not to silence it, be it through democratic means or otherwise.

A lot more of you should realise that us on the extreme left agree with you, even if for different reasons entirely, and we mutually see neoliberalism as ludicrous and threatening. Once you get far enough left—far past what Americans consider to be ‘left’—you’ll find that most of us would reluctantly agree.

Well said, and you sound like someone I would very much enjoy having a long discussion with.

We - as citizens of the world - have far more in common than in disagreement. We just have a wide range of perspective on how to address our issues.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Interesting point, and one that I will only 'slightly' disagree with. "HATEFUL" speech has always existed. "HATE" speech is a generic catch-all term currently being used to mean "things we don't like". That's the issue that people have. And yes... the US Constitution specifically doesn't limit any type of speech - including HATEFUL speech - simply because the definition changes with time. "Shall not infringe" doesn't.
[doublepost=1543960794][/doublepost]

Either participate in a respectful discussion - which by definition includes all parties sharing information - or take your ball and go home. You're no better than any of us and I welcome everyones opinion.

I am not going to get dragged into an argument over semantics. If you don't believe hate speech exists so be it.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Atheists also spew hate speech against Christianity and they hurt our feelings when they mocking our faith. Should we cry and call them Nazis and demand they are shut down from all platforms or something? Timmy would never speak or talk against that type of “hate speech”. His morals are limited only to his leftist ideology and agenda driven activism.

And THAT is the biggest issue underlying this discussion. It's not really about hate speech. It's not about freedom of speech. It's not about protecting minorities from oppression. It's about the SELECTIVE banning of speech.

The US Constitution only applies to "natural citizens", and a business/corporation is by definition not a part of that group. So, sure... Apple can impose censorship on whatever topics/ideas they choose and the market will decide if that's acceptable. Now, in the future, if the Apple/Amazon/Google/Facebook/whatever organizations begin doing this a lot, there is always the possibility that their services will be declared a common carrier (infrastructure). In that case they would not be able to censor anything without government approval.

Personal opinion only: Both Apple and it's customers would be better served by providing opt-in access to varying types of content, similar to how the parental controls are supposed to keep kids from R-rated movies. Opt-in and see all content. Opt-out and don't. Either way YOU (the individual) are in control rather than some corporate control group.